memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Eta
Should this exist? I'm not convinced that this should exist in the form it does now. It is certainly not a disambiguation page by any stretch (1 item does not a disambiguation need), and the page tells us nothing at all. It was previously deleted in a very similar form as per this discussion. Thoughts? -- sulfur (talk) 15:30, September 7, 2012 (UTC) :Yeah, I know... and I was part of that discussion. :) Back then, there wasn't even one canon reference, so it definitely shouldn't have existed. Now... you're right, as is, it's not a disambig with only one entry. I was planning on adding several other links, but I wasn't sure how best to do it... or if I even should. There are a number of non-canon references, from st.com, for example, or various reference books we cite in background info. Do a search on eta and see what pops up... and then let me know what you think. -- Renegade54 (talk) 18:09, September 7, 2012 (UTC) ::Since the Greek alphabet pages are more than just simple disambiguation pages, I don't see a reason to delete this again since there is now a canon reference. Also, was the page restored or recreated from scratch? Just asking because the history looks like it was restored, but the edit summary suggest otherwise. - 23:41, September 7, 2012 (UTC) It was recreated, and I restored the old revisions for reference. And the fact is... a recreation wouldn't be much different regardless. -- sulfur (talk) 05:20, September 8, 2012 (UTC) Merge There seems no other canon reference than as part of a name. As I understand our doing the last year this article should not be here. Tom (talk) 18:33, September 5, 2016 (UTC) :Oppose. This page isn't a disambiguation page, it covers the subject Eta, and is hardly the only single entry page in the Greek language category. I don't think any of those pages, or the Greek language page, would be better served by merging these together, while keeping the others separate. - 18:25, September 6, 2016 (UTC) I understand that you oppose but please give me a reason why this subject should have an article or a canon reference for this specific article. Tom (talk) 18:32, September 6, 2016 (UTC) :How is the current reference not canon, or not enough to warrant this page? - 19:02, September 6, 2016 (UTC) You're talking about being part of a name? Tom (talk) 19:30, September 6, 2016 (UTC) :Pretty much. Since this is a real star, we know the Greek letter is there explictly, see . - 05:19, September 7, 2016 (UTC) Hmm, okay. Though I think the whole thing is very vague. As we don't really know if the Eta Carinae Nebula is really the one depicted on the chart in astrometrics. And I don't see how this is a different situation than a one we previously discussed at length. Tom (talk) 17:38, September 7, 2016 (UTC) :The difference, as I see it, is that we are only IDing the image as a whole, not every individual part of it. - 18:04, September 7, 2016 (UTC)